To Comply or not to Comply ?

ByAuldheid

To Comply or not to Comply ?

UEFA Club Licensing. – To Comply or not to Comply ?

On 16 April 2018 The UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) adjudicatory chamber took decisions in the cases of four clubs that had been referred to it by the CFCB chief investigator, concerning the non-fulfilment of the club licensing criteria defined in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.

Such criteria must be complied with by the clubs in order to be granted the licence required to enter the UEFA club competitions.

The cases of two clubs::

Olympique des Alpes SA (Sion Switzerland )

and

FC Irtysh  (Kazakhstan) 

are of particular interest to those following the events under which the SFA awarded a UEFA License to Rangers FC in 2011 currently under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer because

  1. The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
  2. The cases  tell us what might have happened to Rangers  FC in 2012 had they not gone into liquidation and as a consequence avoided the same type of sanctions that UEFA applied to Sion and Irtysh.

 

FC Sion  (Olympique des Alpes SA)

Here we are told how the Swiss FL and then the UEFA CFCB acted in respect of FC Sion in 2017 where a misleading statement was made in the Sion UEFA licensing application.

Full details can be read at

http://tiny.cc/y6sxsy

 

but this is a summary.

In April 2017 the Swiss FL (SFL) granted a licence to Sion FC but indicated that a Disciplinary case was pending.

In July 2017 the CFCB, as part of their licence auditing programme,  carried out a compliance audit on 3 clubs to determine if licences had been properly awarded. Sion was one of those clubs.

The subsequent audit by Deloitte LLP discovered Sion had an overdue payable on a player, amounting to €950,000, owed to another football club (FC Sochaux ) at 31st March 2017 as a result of a transfer undertaken by Sion before 31st December 2016, although the €950,000 was paid in early June 2017.

Deloitte produced a draft report of their findings that was passed to SFL and Sion for comment on factual accuracy and comment on the findings. Sion responded quickly enabling Deloitte to present a final report to the CFCB Investigation Unit. In response to the Deloitte final report Sion stated:

“il apparaît aujourd’hui qu’il existait bel et bien un engagement impayé découlant d’une activité de transfert. Ce point est admis” translated as

“it now appears that there was indeed an outstanding commitment arising from transfer activity. This is admitted”

What emerged as the investigation proceeded was that the Swiss FL Licensing Committee, after granting the license in April and as a result of a Sochaux complaint of non-payment to FIFA, had reason to refer Sion’s application to their Disciplinary Commission in May 2017 with regard to the submission of potentially misleading information by FC Sion to the SFL on 7th April 2017 as part of its licensing documentation.

Sion had declared

“Written confirmation: no overdue payables arising from transfer activities”, signed by the Club’s president, stating that as at 31 March 2017 there were no overdue payables towards other football clubs. In particular, the Club indicated that the case between FC Sion and FC Sochaux regarding the transfer of the player Ishmael Yartey was still under dispute.

The SFL Disciplinary Commission came to the conclusion that FC Sion had no intention to mislead the SFL, but indeed submitted some incorrect licensing documentation; the SFL Disciplinary Commission further confirmed that the total amount of €950,000 had been paid by the Club to FC Sochaux on 7 June 2017. Because of the inaccurate information submitted, the SFL Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine of CHF 8,000 on the Club.

Whilst this satisfied the SFL Disciplinary process the CFCB deemed it not enough to justify the granting of the licence as UEFA intended their FFP rules to be applied.

Sion provided the CFCB with a number of reasons on the basis of which no sanction should be imposed. In particular, the Club admitted that there was an overdue payable as at 31 March 2017, but stated that the mistake in the document dated 7 April 2017 was the result of a misinterpretation by the club’s responsible person for dealing with the licence (the “Club’s licence manager”), who is not a lawyer. The Club affirmed that it never had the intention to conceal the information and had provisioned the amount due for payment and that, in any case, it has already been sanctioned by the SFL for providing the wrong information.

The CFCB Investigation Unit accepted that the Sion application, although inaccurate, was a one off misrepresentation and not a forgery, (as in intended to deceive ) but that nevertheless an overdue payable did exist at 31st March and a licence should not have been granted.

Based on their findings, the CFCB Chief Investigator decided to refer the case to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber and suggested a disciplinary measure to be imposed on FC Sion by the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, such measure consisting of a fine of €235,000, corresponding to the UEFA Revenues the Club gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.

The CFCB Investigatory Chamber submitted that it was  appropriate to impose a fine corresponding to all the UEFA revenues the Club gained by participating in the competition considering the fact that FC Sion should not have been admitted to the competition for failing to meet one of its admission criteria.

 

The Adjudicatory Chambers took all the circumstances (see paras 91 to 120 at http://tiny.cc/i8sxsy ) into consideration and reached the following key decisions.

  1. FC Sion failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 49(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the SFL not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  2. FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
  3. To exclude FC Sion from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next two (2) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19 and 2019/20).
  4. To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
  5. FC Sion is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings.

Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.

It is now public knowledge that an actual liability of tax due before 31stDecember 2010 towards HMRC, was admitted by Rangers FC before 31st March 2011.

This liability was described as “potential” in Rangers Interim accounts audited by Grant Thornton.

“Note 1: The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. A provision for interest of £0.9m has also been included within the interest charge.”

The English Oxford Dictionary definition of potential is:

Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.

Which was not true as the liability had already been “developed” so could not be potential.

This was repeated by Chairman Alistair Johnson in his covering Interim Accounts statement

“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. “  where he also added

“Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised.”

This could be taken as disputing the liability but In fact the resolution to the assessments raised would have been payment of the actual liability, something that never happened.

In the Sion case it was accepted the misleading statement was a one off misrepresentation, but at the monitoring stages at June 2011 in Ranger’s case the status of the liability continued to be misrepresented and in September the continuing discussions reason was repeated, along with a claim of an instalment paid whose veracity is highly questionable.

The Swiss FL Licensing Committee did at least refer the case to their Disciplinary Committee when they realised a misleading statement might have been made. The SFA however in August 2011, when Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox for payment of the overdue tax , did no such thing and pulled up the drawbridge for six years, one that the Compliance Officer is now finally charged with lowering.

 


 

The case of FC Irtysh of Kazakhstan is set out in full at http://tiny.cc/y9sxsy  and is a bit more straightforward but is nevertheless useful to compare with events in 2011 in Scotland.

Unlike Rangers FC , FC Irtysh properly disclosed that they had an overdue payable to the Kazakhstan tax authorities at the monitoring point at 30th June 2017. This caused the CFCB Investigatory Unit to seek further information with regard to the position at 31st March

It transpired that Irtysh had declared an overdue payable at 31st March but cited their financial position (awaiting sponsor money) as a reason for non payment to the Kazakhstan FA who accepted it and granted the licence. The outstanding tax was paid in September 2107.

The outcome of the CFCB Investigation was a case put to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber  who agreed with the CFCB Investigation Unit that a licence should not have been granted and recommended that Irtysh be fined the equivalent of the UEFA prize money, (that had been withheld in any case whilst CFCB investigated.)

The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber however decided that a fine was not sufficient in sporting deterrent terms and ruled that:

 

  1.  FC Irtysh failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 50bis(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the FFK not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  2. To withhold four hundred and forty thousand Euros (€440,000) corresponding to the UEFA revenues FC Irtysh gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
  3. To exclude FC Irtysh from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next three (3) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons). This sanction is deferred for a probationary period of (3) three years. This exclusion must be enforced in case the Club participates again in a UEFA club competition having not fulfilled the licence criteria required to obtain the UEFA licence in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  4. FC Irtysh is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings. “

 

The deferral was because unlike Rangers FC,  FC Irtysh had properly disclosed to the licensor the correct & accurate financial information required, so the exclusion was deferred for a probationary period of (3) years.

 

Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.

From the foregoing it could be deduced that had Rangers FC qualified for the Champions League (or European League) and not gone bust as a result and so not entered liquidation BUT it became public knowledge by 2012 that a licence had been wrongly and possibly fraudulently granted then

  1. Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
  2. At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
  3. The consequences of both would have been as damaging for Rangers survival as the real life consequences of losing to Malmo and Maribor in the qualifying rounds of the Champions and European Leagues.

Karma eh!

Interestingly in the UEFA COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY REPORT 2015 – 2017 , the CFCB investigatory chamber recommended that both the Kazakhstan FA and Swiss FA as licensors

“pay particular attention to the adequate disclosure of the outstanding amounts payable towards other football clubs, in respect of employees and towards social/tax authorities, which must be disclosed separately;

Would the same recommendation apply to the Scottish FA with regard to their performance in 2011 and will the  SFA responses thereafter to shareholders in a member club be examined for compliance with best governance practice by the SFA Compliance Officer investigating the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011?

This would be a welcome step in fully restoring trust in the SFA.

About the author

Auldheid author

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

7,185 Comments so far

bordersdonPosted on3:27 pm - Aug 1, 2018


redlichtieAugust 1, 2018 at 15:09BARCABHOYAUGUST 1, 2018 at 14:16Ban David Murray Sine Die Void the titles won due to cheating  Give 3 year bans to all other Directors who served on Murray’s board since 1999 Set Aside LNS and revisit based on final outcome of EBT’s  Fully detailed public  report on Rangers award of Uefa licence in 2011 Any 3 of those 5 and most people would settle for that being an end to the matter ================================== With you 100% BARCABHOY except it should be all five.
Scottish Football needs to grasp this nettle once and for all. No peace until that is done.
———————————————————–
All five for me (although no 2 would surely happen after no 4, or maybe not!)

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on3:30 pm - Aug 1, 2018


BARCABHOY
No idea why Lawman would incorrectly claim what he did , however he is totally wrong in claiming that the scheme that Ogilvie personally signed off was above board 
It 100% was not 

__________________________________________________________________

I dont understand that Barca.  Here is what i said:

“Ogilivies signature was only on the Craig Moore scheme which was not subject to any penalties from HMRC after review.

It was Douglas Odam who signed the schemes that resulted in the DOS scheme penalties. ”

Which part of these is an incorrect claim or totally wrong ?   Happy to review any links as that is certainly my recollection from reading it all back in 2016.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on3:43 pm - Aug 1, 2018


TheLawMan2
August 1, 2018 at 14:52
Its when people shade the rules, it leads to issues.
=========================================

If you mean “cheat” why not just type “cheat”.

People who indulge in tax avoidance are cheating, leading to them paying civil penalties when they are caught.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on3:55 pm - Aug 1, 2018


Craig Moore’s scheme was treated by HMRC on exactly the same basis as Flo’s and De Boer’s 

There was no seperation on what was liable to penalties and what wasn’t 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:01 pm - Aug 1, 2018


BARCABHOYAUGUST 1, 2018 at 15:55Craig Moore’s scheme was treated by HMRC on exactly the same basis as Flo’s and De Boer’s 
There was no seperation on what was liable to penalties and what wasn’t 
____________

Haud oan Barcabhoy, surely Lawman will have had it straight from the horse’s ar…mouth that Moore’s was different! He’s a well connected high flier, you know!

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on4:11 pm - Aug 1, 2018


He’s wrong. 

Why he’s putting this out is curious. A lie to mitigate for Ogilvie 

Anyway , there’s an expert on twitter , who broke the entire Rangers Tax scams story . He used to have a brilliant blog, even won an Orwell prize . He knows and he’s proven he knows . Easy enough to ask him, he’ll tell you what i’m stating is correct .

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on4:21 pm - Aug 1, 2018


So, L2 is lying to the blog.
Whodda thunk it?

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on4:24 pm - Aug 1, 2018


BARCABHOYAUGUST 1, 2018 at 15:55

Craig Moore’s scheme was treated by HMRC on exactly the same basis as Flo’s and De Boer’s 
There was no seperation on what was liable to penalties and what wasn’t 

________________________________________________________________________

No it wasnt im afraid.  The bill on 20th May is very detailed and clear that the Wee Tax case was only about De Boer and Flo.  There was no penalties at all for Moore.

ALLYJAMBO

Haud oan Barcabhoy, surely Lawman will have had it straight from the horse’s ar…mouth that Moore’s was different! He’s a well connected high flier, you know!

________________________________________________________________

Ally, can i please ask what I have done to upset you.  Where have i said anywhere im “well connected” or a “high flier”  Can we not just chat and debate sensibly without all these ad hominem attacks ?

BARCABHOYAUGUST 1, 2018 at 16:11

He’s wrong. 

__________________________________________________________

Im actually not.   As stated above, If someone can find the letter dated 20 May 2011 to McIntyre of Rangers.  It clearly sets out the DOS scheme and penalties is for Flo and De Boer only.  There is no mention of Moore at all.

I will have a look my self but the links are no longer working. I will find it though.

EDIT – Heres a link which backs me up about the Wee Tax Case.

https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/the-rangers-tax-taxes-wee-and-big-what-actually-happened/

“Well, on 20th May 2011, HMRC wrote to Rangers Football Club, addressing their correspondence to the then Company Secretary, Donald McIntyre, and effectively told Rangers PLC that they were totally fed up with the company and alleged that the company had deliberately and fraudulently understated the PAYE and NIC monthly returns between the years 2000/2001 and 2002/2003 in respect of Ronald De Boer and Torre Andre Flo.

The chargeable sums for just these two players alone amounted to £2.8 Million plus and the debt had started to accrue over a decade before. HMRC had discussed this with MIH and Rangers PLC officials at length, had written to them repeatedly, and by this time they were scunnered!

This sum formed the basis of what is known as The Wee Tax Case and was based upon Rangers operation of what were known as DOS based EBT’s.”

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on4:33 pm - Aug 1, 2018


Ps – just to add, im not mitigating Ogilvie in anything here.  I was asked a question on my views on him and i acknowledged and answered it which led to a different question, then an allegation.  His name doesnt even register in my head when it comes to like or dislike hence why i never mentioned him.

I hope my responses and answering of the questions are not seen as anything other than doing just that.

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on4:41 pm - Aug 1, 2018


Guys i think the LM2 is trolling yous for information as in lets see what info you guys really hold over the defunct institution.
No ordinary Sevconian has defended a corner and asked so many awkard and inquisitive questions of a blog previously.
Someone is not been fed the necessary info to throw all of us off the trail, the information regards the death of the club and corruption was served in the Saltmarket HC, the rest for us is just simply following the money to piece and tie up the frayed edges and corruption and its widespread use in our game and especially to the benefit of a dead parrot. 
LM2 is clearly a troll with a mission.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on4:52 pm - Aug 1, 2018


Moore’s case was treated by HMRC as being identical to that for Flo and De Boer. However, there was no side letter, which created an “out of time” possibility.

HMRC issued an “out of time” assessment in Sep 2007 for Moore, but as it related to 1999/2000 it was outside the six year limit and wouldn’t stand up on its own, unless they could show negligence or dishonesty by RFC.  This assessment was appealed by RFC but was put on hold pending the outcome of the similar AAM case.

When HMRC resumed their case against RFC in late 2010 following HMRC’s FTTT “win” against AAM, the assessments issued with the letter inviting RFC to settle on AAM terms related to all three players (this letter was referenced in the criminal trial).

HMRC could have continued to argue for the assessment in Moore’s case on the basis that they had side letters for Flo and De Boer (existence previously denied), thus demonstrating dishonest intent in what were similar schemes.

However, HMRC agreed to drop their Moore claim, without prejudice, when agreeing a settlement figure. In return, RFC informed HMRC of additional taxable sums paid to De Boer of €728k which should have been included in the calculations.

Rather than argue the case, and delay settlement any further, HMRC chose the path of least resistance and accepted “a bird in the hand”, by excluding Moore and accepting the De Boer disclosure.

All of this, of course, happened before 31 March 2011.  I’ve heard that date is somehow important in the wider scheme of things.

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on4:59 pm - Aug 1, 2018


BIGBOAB1916AUGUST 1, 2018 at 16:41
Agree 
My guess is he has a connection to the old regime as he seems determined to absolve the part the knight of the realm played in the whole episode 

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on5:00 pm - Aug 1, 2018


easyJamboAugust 1, 2018 at 16:52I’ve heard that date is somehow important in the wider scheme of things.
Reached down for my program list for the team news tonight and as if by magic what you had stated appears in my hand instead of the program,my copy of offshore report staing exactly all you claim, canny or what.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on5:06 pm - Aug 1, 2018


Does anybody know the rationale wrt earlykick offs in European competitions ? Is it down to domestic television requirements , or does UEFA dictate ?

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on5:07 pm - Aug 1, 2018


Thanks Easyjambo

Just for clarity, as you have stated, there were no penalties in relation to the Moore case. 

The Wee Tax Case penalties solely related to De Boer and Flo, whose contracts were signed by Douglas Odam, exactly what i said above.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:18 pm - Aug 1, 2018


ALLYJAMBO
Haud oan Barcabhoy, surely Lawman will have had it straight from the horse’s ar…mouth that Moore’s was different! He’s a well connected high flier, you know!________________________________________________________________
Ally, can i please ask what I have done to upset you.  Where have i said anywhere im “well connected” or a “high flier”  Can we not just chat and debate sensibly without all these ad hominem attacks ?
___________

Lawman, 

You are constantly telling us that you have been told by someone in a position of knowledge/authority, or that you were actually involved in whatever you claim, and write in a manner that suggests we should accept your word for it without providing the least justification. Recent example was a post you made regarding the red tops, when you told us you’d been told by someone at Ibrox, who was in a position to know, that they were definitely a 4th kit. Another that comes to mind was your claim that you knew whatever it was you were talking about purely because you’d been called as an unused witness to the Whyte trial. On a number of other occassions you’ve tried to give the impression that you are ‘in the know’ without a hint of justification for it. You also like to point out that, through your business knowledge and contacts, you know things that we mere punters don’t. If pointing this out makes you feel you are under attack, heaven help you as a businessman should your assertions ever be questioned.

Still, if you are telling us now that you are not ‘in the know’, and have none of these connections, hopefully we can expect to see your future posts justified with some sort of documentary evidence, rather than you just telling us you’ve been told something by some un-named person that we should just accept as being some sort of authority.

I’m pleased to be able to tell you, though, that you have never upset me, on the contrary, you have often provided us with the evidence – by your poor and un-evidenced arguments – that there exists no viable counter arguments to the main point’s we raise here regarding the Ibrox clubs. 

View Comment

TimtimPosted on5:19 pm - Aug 1, 2018


Paddy, regards kick off times I believe it’s TV revenue that dictates that.
I watched FC Twente play a Portuguese club a few years ago with a 21:45 ko time to accommodate Portuguese viewers . The game went to extra time and penalties and we got out about 00:30.
First time I’ve been to a game that started and finished on different days.

viewers

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on5:25 pm - Aug 1, 2018


Allyjambo – knowing 1 person at the club and being an unused witness at the Whyte case makes me neither “well connected” nor a “high flier” and i most certainly dont feel im better than anyone because of my business history.  

People post on here every day without showing a single shred of evidence.  Lets leave it at that to prevent any circular arguments and upsetting the rest of the board.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on5:46 pm - Aug 1, 2018


TheLawMan2 August 1, 2018 at 17:07
Thanks Easyjambo
Just for clarity, as you have stated, there were no penalties in relation to the Moore case. 
The Wee Tax Case penalties solely related to De Boer and Flo, whose contracts were signed by Douglas Odam, exactly what i said above.
=============================
Once again you have resorted to your “I told you so” approach, without acknowledgement of the implications of my full post.

Moore’s scheme was the same as the other two, save for the survival of a side letter detailing the schedule of payments.

Do you accept this, or do you feel that it is worth arguing over the minutiae once again, that in some way that Moore’s scheme was completely above board?

You previously accepted that RFC might get away with a technicality on the WTC NoC.  Rather than look for an “out” for the club, why don’t you look at why RFC’s actions throughout this were totally unacceptable to most fans and accepting that those responsible should be sanctioned?

I had no problem accepting that Romanov set up dodgy tax arrangements for some of the Kaunas loanees at Hearts and had no issue with the club or individuals being chased through courts and elsewhere.   

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on5:57 pm - Aug 1, 2018


EASYJAMBO
Once again you have resorted to your “I told you so” approach, without acknowledgement of the implications of my full post.
Moore’s scheme was the same as the other two, save for the survival of a side letter detailing the schedule of payments.
Do you accept this, or do you feel that it is worth arguing over the minutiae once again, that in some way that Moore’s scheme was completely above board?
You previously accepted that RFC might get away with a technicality on the WTC NoC.  Rather than look for an “out” for the club why don’t you look at why RFC’s actions throughout this were totally unacceptable to most fans and accepting that those responsible should be sanctioned?
I had no problem accepting that Romanov set up dodgy tax arrangements for some of the Kaunas loanees at Hearts and had no issue with the club or individuals being chased through courts and elsewhere.   

___________________________________________________

EJ – I only answered a question on Ogilvie by stating he only signed one contract and that it didnt result in any penalties.  Your post confirmed that, despite accusations i was wrong and that i was lying.

Bottom line is for the Moore case, HMRC dropped it.  There is no minutiae detail to argue over.  The Moore case had no penalties and wasnt connected to the WTC as was claimed.

Ive acknowledged in full that we should have been nowhere near EBTs and should never have signed up to them but not sure what that has to do with a simple question on Ogilvie if im being honest.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on6:08 pm - Aug 1, 2018


easyJamboAugust 1, 2018 at 16:52
bigboab 1 August 2018 17.00
‘ …and as if by magic what you had stated appears in my hand …’
__________________________
not magic, bigboab: just excellent record keeping of full, factual information and detail by both you and eJ.
Also, something to do with the inevitability of Truth always finding its way to the surface through  any number of level of untruth or error.
(It’s maybe worth keeping in mind that even ‘well-connected’  deniers , assuming any such presume to post on this blog, may themselves have been lied to or misinformed, or are blindly grasping at straws in  a necessarily vain attempt to defend the indefensible.)

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:12 pm - Aug 1, 2018


TheLawMan2 August 1, 2018 at 17:57
EJ – I only answered a question on Ogilvie by stating he only signed one contract and that it didnt result in any penalties. Your post confirmed that, despite accusations i was wrong and that i was lying.
Bottom line is for the Moore case, HMRC dropped it. There is no minutiae detail to argue over. The Moore case had no penalties and wasnt connected to the WTC as was claimed.
Ive acknowledged in full that we should have been nowhere near EBTs and should never have signed up to them but not sure what that has to do with a simple question on Ogilvie if im being honest.
=============================
You didn’t answer my question.

Do you accept that Moore’s scheme was the same as the other two? 

Just so that you are clear, I’m asking about it’s set up, structure, operation and effects, not who signed the letters.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on6:15 pm - Aug 1, 2018


THELAWMAN2AUGUST 1, 2018 at 17:57
OK let’s just alter the thrust of the question ‘re Campbell Ogilvie.
Do you agree with the comments of Stewart Regan that Campbell Ogilivie was ‘heavily conflicted in such a way that he could be involved into investigations into Rangers while holding the SFA presidency.
Surely his role at Rangers made him the ideal person to be questioned as part of any investigation.
If not agreeing with Regan then why do you believe he wasn’t conflicted.
If agreeing with Regan then what exactly was the conflict the SFA CEO was referring to.

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on6:23 pm - Aug 1, 2018


EASYJAMBO
Do you accept that Moore’s scheme was the same as the other two? 
Just so that you are clear, I’m asking about it’s set up, structure, operation and effects, not who signed the letters.
___________________________________________________________________

I have no idea.  I can only work with the evidence that HMRC had all 3 cases in front of them and decided that for whatever reason, the case against Moore clearly wasnt as strong as the other 2.  As was stated earlier if something was wrong then the additional tax and penalties would have been applied.

I dont know anything about the structure of the scheme though as you said above, there was no side letter so something was different about it.

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on6:27 pm - Aug 1, 2018


WOTTPI
I believe Ogilvie WAS conflicted and shouldnt have been involved as an “investigator” but if required or appropriate could be called as a witness.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:45 pm - Aug 1, 2018


BIGBOAB1916AUGUST 1, 2018 at 14:50https://daviesleftpeg.wordpress.com/https://daviesleftpeg.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/738/
The peg informing the jobs for the boys mentality for the pursuit of keeping the board in tow. Apparantely the Rhats heads have been revealed.
———————
Took them long enough to wake up and smell the roses. If they had read SFM and other sites they would have came to these conclusions long ago, so no sympathy for them.
———————
On Monday, after the details were announced, the same individuals were claiming victory that we’ve now got a contract by default. From where have we as a support developed this reluctance to criticise or accept blame? That is traditionally a trait we identify in the less successful conspiracy theorists across the city.  Our legal advice has utterly fucked us here and someone must be held accountable.
—————–
From where have we as a support developed this reluctance to criticise or accept blame?
————
Maybe since 1999

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on6:52 pm - Aug 1, 2018


THELAWMAN2AUGUST 1, 2018 at 17:07Thanks Easyjambo
Just for clarity, as you have stated, there were no penalties in relation to the Moore case. 
The Wee Tax Case penalties solely related to De Boer and Flo, whose contracts were signed by Douglas Odam, exactly what i said above.
   ———————————————————————————————————
   Aye, thanks Easy. I had a feeling you would be the most precise, and certainly more so than I could be. 
   So Lawman, as I stated his autograph was attached to the DOS scheme. I was also correct. I also stated he was baw-deep in the biggest sporting scandal we have ever witnessed. 
    Now you are not daft, and pretty au-fait with matters. Commission dates altered, mis-represented facts portrayed to LNS, payments he accepted, being the appeal body of a commission he was making a star appearance at…………..Not forgetting The 5-way agreement. You are aware of all that. 
   Yet you have directed very little thought to any parts to which he may have played?.   Strange, considering on other matters you can reduced the issues under debate to mere microns. 
   In fact you did such a reduction, in defence of Campbell Ogilvie by pointing out his signature was missing from the Moore paperwork, rather suggesting you have given him more thought than you originally posted.  
   Considering he was president of the Association, and whose signature was on unlawful documentation, from the time he was a director of Rangers (I.L.)… I find that truly astonishing, and frankly, hard to believe.
   Please don’t ask me to believe he was a sheep either. He was the President of the Association, during the LNS commission and the Pinsent Mason whitewash, and previously had the power of attorney to sign off on an unlawful scheme, on behalf of Rangers(I.L.)…… Ergo he played a key part.
    Are you seriously saying he has no questions to answer, and is unworthy of attention?…….Really?
He had no part to play in the state Rangers(I.L.) found themselves in?………Staggering !  
    
      
   
     

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on6:52 pm - Aug 1, 2018


TheLawMan2August 1, 2018 at 18:23
” I dont know anything about the structure of the scheme though as you said above, there was no side letter so something was different about it.”

I believe you know what swung it for HMRC in the above, cases can time out, however when it is discovered there is concealment involved the case can never time out as this brings into play a case not of just tax avoidance or whatever they wish to dress it up as, but brings in a new case of deciet which becomes a concealment and no longer makes it a civil action.
Would you agree that when the side letters appeared for the other two the HMRC  knew that by dropping the more serious issue they had the evidence and acceptance/liability now to pursue all or any further tax issues if they suspected more?
The HMRC now had the hook, the line and the bait to rake back what was rightfully the public monies.

You should do more reading instead of flogging a dead horse, the sins committed killed Rangers Football Club 1872 we know it and our grandchildren and future will know it, for we were there when it happened and the testimonies are in stone, this is one of the greatest disasters ever to hit Scottish Football and it did so when a new generation of media was at its peak and for that we are grateful.
The truth is out there you no longer need to search.(Res 12 and downfall the greatest recorded events ever and of course the contributions of all who put their shoulder to the wheel to bring about the push for justice in sport)
http://celticunderground.net/rangers-fc-appealing-the-wee-tax-case-in-2011-and-their-uefa-licence-application-for-201213/

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:54 pm - Aug 1, 2018


TheLawMan2 August 1, 2018 at 18:23
I dont know anything about the structure of the scheme though as you said above, there was no side letter so something was different about it.
=============================
I’ve already told you that it was ultimately not pursued because of the absence of a side letter meant there there was a possibility that the assessment would have been ruled unenforceable because it was time barred (there may have been a side letter, but none was produced/discovered/admitted). 

Side letters were not produced for all the EBT recipients in the BTC, but HMRC were able to argue, successfully, in the tribunals and courts, that there was a pattern to RFC’s actions that enabled all cases to be treated as similar, on the balance of probabilities. That included cases that would otherwise have been deemed “out of time” assessments.  The WTC was not taken to a tribunal or a court, so the argument about the validity of Moore’s assessment was not tested.     

If a crime or other offence is not prosecuted because it is time barred that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen (at least in the non RFC world).

If you are unaware of how DOS schemes work then I’d suggest that you read up on the AAM FTTT and other internet sources of how DOS schemes were set up and operated.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2010/TC00779.html

BTW it may be of interest to you that the trustees in the RFC DOS scheme were the same as those used by AAM.  Just saying likes.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on7:04 pm - Aug 1, 2018


THELAWMAN2AUGUST 1, 2018 at 18:23
Given your pedantry you surely noted I asked that if you agree he was conflicted what was the nature of that conflict?

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on7:09 pm - Aug 1, 2018


CORRUPT OFFICIAL   So Lawman, as I stated his autograph was attached to the DOS scheme. I was also correct. I also stated he was baw-deep in the biggest sporting scandal we have ever witnessed. 

Its only my opinion that he wasnt.  The scheme was Murrays and his alone.  The rest were just puppets on a string.    

   In fact you did such a reduction, in defence of Campbell Ogilvie by pointing out his signature was missing from the Moore paperwork, rather suggesting you have given him more thought than you originally posted.  

   
Quite the opposite.  I said Moore was the only one he signed.

Considering he was president of the Association, and whose signature was on unlawful documentation, from the time he was a director of Rangers (I.L.)… I find that truly astonishing, and frankly, hard to believe.

Im being genuine here when i say im not sure where this is going or why.  I set out a load of people and things i disagree with or have a strong opinion on in a post and someone asked me about Ogilvie.  I dont have a strong opinion on him.  He just doesnt register in my thoughts.  Im really not sure what to say other than that.   

Please don’t ask me to believe he was a sheep either. He was the President of the Association, during the LNS commission and the Pinsent Mason whitewash, and previously had the power of attorney to sign off on an unlawful scheme, on behalf of Rangers(I.L.)…… Ergo he played a key part.

   
I cant remember the total number of EBTs Rangers had but it was probably 50+.  Ogilvie had the pen for 1 of them.  And i believe its the only 1 that HMRC have taken no action on.  Douglas Odam and various others signed off on all the rest.

Are you seriously saying he has no questions to answer, and is unworthy of attention?…….Really?He had no part to play in the state Rangers(I.L.) found themselves in?………Staggering !  

No im not saying that at all.  Can i remind you of what i said “Have no real positive or negative views towards him to be honest. Ultimately, Murray made all the decisions”  Thats my opinion 

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on7:13 pm - Aug 1, 2018


BIGBOAB1916

I believe you know what swung it for HMRC in the above, cases can time out, however when it is discovered there is concealment involved the case can never time out as this brings into play a case not of just tax avoidance or whatever they wish to dress it up as, but brings in a new case of deciet which becomes a concealment and no longer makes it a civil action.

I think i agree with that.  So why didnt they pursue it ?

Would you agree that when the side letters appeared for the other two the HMRC  knew that by dropping the more serious issue they had the evidence and acceptance/liability now to pursue all or any further tax issues if they suspected more?

Im not sure i follow.  What more serious issue did they drop ?  Moores was the least serious of all 3 surely given the monies involved.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:14 pm - Aug 1, 2018


EASYJAMBOAUGUST 1, 2018 at 18:54
(there may have been a side letter, but none was produced/discovered/admitted). 
—————
Shredded….They never had those shred-it vans outside ibrox for nothing.
——
Ps. have the TU,TD gone?

View Comment

bect67Posted on7:17 pm - Aug 1, 2018


As a break from Lawman2 versus, well everybody really, how’s about this for lazy sports coverage?
Just looked over Sunday Mail/Ladbrokes ‘Scottish Football Fixtures 18/19 pullout, and realised that there is no mention of Scottish League Cup dates!
Nae treble treble fur ma team then – ah well!

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on7:23 pm - Aug 1, 2018


EASYJAMBOAUGUST 1, 2018 at 18:54

I’ve already told you that it was ultimately not pursued because of the absence of a side letter meant there there was a possibility that the assessment would have been ruled unenforceable because it was time barred (there may have been a side letter, but none was produced/discovered/admitted). 

 

Im not sure then what you want me to take from that though.  Its the only case in 50+ that has not resulted in a demand or penalties.  Am i correct in saying that ?
  

If a crime or other offence is not prosecuted because it is time barred that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen (at least in the non RFC world).

Agreed.  Im sure you agree though the person or persons involved in that also have rights though.  Or does that not apply because its Rangers ?

If you are unaware of how DOS schemes work then I’d suggest that you read up on the AAM FTTT and other internet sources of how DOS schemes were set up and operated.http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2010/TC00779.html

I have a general awareness but there are many different variations of them.  I dont know the exact details of the 3 cases enough to give a qualified judgement on them being the same which is what you ask.  Again i can only go with the evidence that 50+ schemes have been “punished” and 1 hasnt.  I can remember at the time noting the people who set up the schemes even distinguished between Flo, De Boer and the EBT schemes versus the Moore scheme.

Anyway, none of it matters anyhow as this came about from me not having an opinion on Ogilvie.  I still dont.  Other than he was a sheep and had all the perks a blazer brings without having the balls to walk away if he didnt agree with EBTs.

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on7:26 pm - Aug 1, 2018


WOTTPIAUGUST 1, 2018 at 19:04THELAWMAN2AUGUST 1, 2018 at 18:23Given your pedantry you surely noted I asked that if you agree he was conflicted what was the nature of that conflict?
_______________________________________________________-

That he was on the Rangers Board at the time of the period under investigation.  It would have been ridiculous for him to be part of the investigating team.  Heavily conflicted.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:27 pm - Aug 1, 2018


THELAWMAN2AUGUST 1, 2018 at 19:09
Ultimately, Murray made all the decisions”  Thats my opinion 
————–
Ally believed gers hell was not Murray mess.

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on7:36 pm - Aug 1, 2018


CLUSTER ONEAUGUST 1, 2018 at 19:27Attachment 
THELAWMAN2AUGUST 1, 2018 at 19:09Ultimately, Murray made all the decisions”  Thats my opinion ————–Ally believed gers hell was not Murray mess.

___________________________________________

Its a lovely headline but when you read what he says…..

I dont like Ally either by the way so he could be added to my list of huge failures and snout in the trough but what he is saying in that article is that he believes Murray was doing what he thought was best for the club.

I believe that too…….up until the Whyte decision…..when he just wanted to wash his hands of it all.

Does anyone on here not agree with me that Murray made all the decisions at the club between 1988 and 2011, even when he wasnt Chairman ???  

Id be very surprised if anyone disagreed with me on that one to be honest.  The rest of the board were all puppets.

PS – do you have a back office of all clips featuring Rangers in the papers on your hard drive CO? 🙂

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on7:37 pm - Aug 1, 2018


TheLawMan2 August 1, 2018 at 19:23
Im not sure then what you want me to take from that though. Its the only case in 50+ that has not resulted in a demand or penalties. Am i correct in saying that ?
============================
I don’t know if you are playing the daft laddie or not, but you are not correct in that, unless you subscribe to the LNS Commission’s contention of the two trust schemes being a single entity.

There were only three players involved in the WTC, the assessments for two of whom made up  quoted £2.8m figure, e.g. in the court case and the takeover SPA.

The FTTT report in the BTC indicates that there were 108 sub-trusts in use, 81 in the names of RFC players and 27 in other group employees.

Anyway, I’ve got a game to watch ……….. Tynecastle FC v Peebles Rovers.

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on7:37 pm - Aug 1, 2018


Jist incase,
the Celtic game is on virgin premier sports @7. 40

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on7:44 pm - Aug 1, 2018


EASYJAMBOI don’t know if you are playing the daft laddie or not, but you are not correct in that, unless you subscribe to the LNS Commission’s contention of the two trust schemes being a single entity.
There were only three players involved in the WTC, the assessments for two of whom made up  quoted £2.8m figure, e.g. in the court case and the takeover SPA.
The FTTT report in the BTC indicates that there were 108 sub-trusts in use, 81 in the names of RFC players and 27 in other group employees.
Anyway, I’ve got a game to watch ……….. Tynecastle FC v Peebles Rovers.
___________________________________________________________

I think we are agreeing.  Every one of the 81 in the BTC and Flo and De Boer in the WTC resulted in “penalties”.  Moore was the only that didnt.  Is that correct ?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:53 pm - Aug 1, 2018


This is what Ogilvie had to say. Funny that on this day March 15,2012 it was only a free paper that ran the Ogilvie interview that i can find. Most ran the Gers out of Administration but will be back in Administration on monday.
                                                                                                      The scottish football  Association president insists he had no role in drafting or administering player contracts at rangers after the mid-1990s. despite being company secretary until 2002 and then general secretary until he left in 2005.
——-
That lead to suggestions that Ogilvie is conflicted in his present role but he was backed by former rangers owner sir David Murray,who insisted Ogilvie wasn’t involved in paying people.
———
Ogilvie, my role at rangers until the mid-90s, included finalising the paper work for player registrations.As confirmed by sir David murray,it was never my role to negotiate contracts at rangers.
It is also worth noting that since the mid-90s, i was not responsible for drafting or administering of player contracts

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:55 pm - Aug 1, 2018


oops forgot article

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:56 pm - Aug 1, 2018


here it is sorry for hold up.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:58 pm - Aug 1, 2018


THELAWMAN2AUGUST 1, 2018 at 19:36
————
I have a big shed08

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:04 pm - Aug 1, 2018


THELAWMAN2AUGUST 1, 2018 at 19:36
what he is saying in that article is that he believes Murray was doing what he thought was best for the club.
I believe that too.
—————-
Do you believe murray was doing the best for the club when he used EBT’s in the way they were not suppose to be used and do you believe that murray was doing the best for the club by non disclosure of side letters?
Away to watch game.08

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on8:34 pm - Aug 1, 2018


CLUSTER ONEAUGUST 1, 2018 at 20:04THELAWMAN2AUGUST 1, 2018 at 19:36what he is saying in that article is that he believes Murray was doing what he thought was best for the club.I believe that too.—————-Do you believe murray was doing the best for the club when he used EBT’s in the way they were not suppose to be used and do you believe that murray was doing the best for the club by non disclosure of side letters?Away to watch game.

_______________________________

“what HE THOUGHT was best”

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:15 pm - Aug 1, 2018


TheLawMan2August 1, 2018 at 20:34
‘..“what HE THOUGHT was best”’
___________
I rather suspect that Murray thought  only of what was best for himself.

Rangers football Club was nothing for him but a vanity project which also provided him with a power and influence that many much wealthier and more successful businessmen and politicians do not have.

When his recklessness in borrowing ( combined with his inability to foresee, and cope adequately with, what was happening in the world of steel) landed him in a personal scrabble to save something of his ’empire’, the fate of Rangers Football Club was of very, very secondary concern to him.

All he wanted to do was to get shot of it so that he could get shot of the debt and save his own business thereby, let whatever happen to the club.

And we have all seen that what happened was the death of the club, and the death of  Integrity in Scottish Football.

He has a helluva lot to answer for, has Murray.

And answer for it he will, some day, even if his brass neck lets him pretend to himself otherwise.

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on9:27 pm - Aug 1, 2018


lawman2, aka steerpike, 
among other well-known stupid names, you used to post under you want  tae chuck it!!!

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:40 pm - Aug 1, 2018


king said”I have made a claim of £20million on the basis of non-disclosure by the then chairman David murray,of rangers true financial position as far back as 2000.
————–
Wonder why king was worried about the true financial position as far back as 2000.
————
This when king was going to sue murray. wonder what happened to that?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:44 pm - Aug 1, 2018


TheLawMan2August 1, 2018 at 20:34‘..“what HE THOUGHT was best”’
—————-
Maybe in the short term.In the long term i believe he would hope it would be someone else’s problem.

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on10:01 pm - Aug 1, 2018


PortbhoyAugust 1, 2018 at 21:27

Yep 100% hahaha.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on10:12 pm - Aug 1, 2018


LM2 82 
Any chance of posting links to the accounts of the two or three ITK guys ? Am currently using a phone and have limited internet access or I would try to find them myself . Just want to check their pedigree . 

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on10:20 pm - Aug 1, 2018


Yet again Lawman hijacks the blog. Defending Murray is as low as it gets , and as idiotic

i hope you are making very very substantial financial donations to the upkeep of this blog. I hope you have previously contributed substantially to all previous requests

it would be completely unacceptable to me, as someone who does make a healthy contribution, should you use this forum without making a contribution

to have to put up with your fabrications and your walter mitty like claims is one thing, to subsidise your ability to do so is quite another 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:21 pm - Aug 1, 2018


TheLawMan2 August 1, 2018 at 19:44
I think we are agreeing. Every one of the 81 in the BTC and Flo and De Boer in the WTC resulted in “penalties”. Moore was the only that didnt. Is that correct ?
=========================
We are agreeing SFA.

In at least three earlier posts, I told you that Moore’s assessment was “out of time”. It’s only three short words, but if you are really struggling to take it in, then I can explain the phrase to you.

You profess no knowledge of whether or not Moore’s scheme was similar to that of Flo and De Boer. You don’t know how DOS schemes work, yet you continue to argue the Moore was somehow different from every other RFC player from the period who sought to avoid tax.

It’s normal courtesy on this board to thank others who help your understanding of a particular topic. You have shown no inclination to do so.

I alerted others about your posting style a week or two back. I suggested that you would soon revert to trolling, once you were freed from moderation. I think we have seen evidence of that tonight.

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on10:35 pm - Aug 1, 2018


Image result for rangers black   hummel training  shorts

434086D8-AA42-45D1-B542-40962952A332.thumb.png.06316fddb11d1c337e527735180f4c72.png

how hard can this kit design gig be when  all you have to do is take a genetic sports top add a pair of training shorts and a pair of the first strips socks and presto you have designed a fourth kit 

Or in other words just pick through the stuff in the kit laundry room and iron on a few badges and numbers 

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on10:46 pm - Aug 1, 2018


Going through some  archives there, an’ came across this, hope it’s allowed, ….
https://youtu.be/ofhao4SHXGo

View Comment

MercDocPosted on10:53 pm - Aug 1, 2018


I don’t know if this helps with Ogilvie vs Odam. Taken from the Tax Justice Network. Goes on a bit but very interesting.
https://www.taxjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Web-edition-Doing-SFA-for-Fair-Play-Main-report-updated.pdf

The cover-up
The crucial information about the DOS scheme was apparently unknown to the commission, yet it should have been well known to people giving evidence to the commission – people who appear to have withheld that information from the inquiry.
One man who could certainly have told them about the DOS scheme was Campbell Ogilvie. Ogilvie had been one of Scotland’s longest serving football administrators having become assistant company secretary at Rangers in 1978, rising to company secretary a year later. He was a director of the club when the employee benefits trusts were being set up. By the time he gave evidence to the inquiry he had become president of the Scottish Football Association.

He was the only person to give evidence in person to the commission on the introduction and administration of the tax avoidance scheme. Two others, Andrew Dixon and Douglas Odam, both Rangers officials, did not appear before the commission but their evidence appeared in writing.

Ogilvie was later put under considerable pressure when it was revealed that he had himself been a beneficiary (to the tune of £95,000) of the employee benefits trust, and after the payments to players were held to break SFA rules faced calls to resign as President.

However, before the inquiry and in a number of public statements since Ogilvie claimed not to know any details of the trusts. He said to the inquiry that he had only been made aware of the existence of the employee benefits trust in 2001 or 2002 when a payment was made to him though the trust. He understood the payment to be non-contractual and only after that did he discover that the trust was also making payments to players. He said he did not know any of the details about how they operated as the EBTs were not within the remit of his role. He told the inquiry that he had not been involved in preparing documents relating to player’s contracts since the early 1990s. The inquiry decision quotes Mr Ogilvie as saying:
“Nothing to do with the contributions being made to the Trust fell within the scope of my remit at Rangers”.

Douglas Odam, finance director at Rangers (EBT: £119,000), supported Ogilvie and told the inquiry in his written statement that although the concept of the employee benefit trust had been discussed at a meeting of the board of Rangers he could not remember which board members were present and details of player contracts were not normally discussed at board meetings.
However, documents seen by The Offshore Game show that Mr Ogilvie not only was aware of the arrangements set up by the club, he was in fact a central figure in establishing the discounted options scheme used to pay Craig Moore.
In a letter dated 3 September 1999 signed by Campbell Ogilvie on behalf of the club, Rangers took control of an Isle of Man company called Montreal Limited. The company was managed by the Jersey branch of the Allied Irish Bank.

The letter from Mr Ogilvie makes it clear that the purpose of the company is to provide remuneration to a valued employee of Rangers Football Club.

Just over two weeks later, on September 16th the Board of Directors of Rangers Football Club met. The only board members present were David Murray, the Chairman (EBT: £6.3m), Campbell Ogilvie and MacDonald. Douglas Odam also attended although he was not a member of the board.

The minutes of this meeting, also seen by The Offshore Game, show that the only item of business discussed was “remuneration planning for the company’s employees”. The minutes note that Mr Ogilvie had taken control of Montreal Limited on behalf of the club and the three board members then resolved to give ownership of Montreal Limited to Craig Moore: the key transaction in the DOS EBT scheme. The correspondence from AIB revealing Mr Ogilvie’s role is contained in Annex III to this report.

Although it appears that HMRC did not take action with regard to the Craig Moore discounted option scheme, it was the same scheme that was used to pay Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer. In those cases the club accepted that the payments were unlawful due to the existence of the side letters. Crucially, payments into this scheme was made by the Rangers Employee Benefits Trust.

Although we have seen no evidence that Mr Ogilvie played a similar role in setting up the schemes for Ronald de Boer and Tore Andre Flo, his statement to the inquiry that “nothing to do” with contributions to the employee benefit trust came under his remit at Rangers, is clearly false.

Mr Odam certainly did know about the agreement with Ronald de Boer. A letter from HMRC to Rangers notes that Mr Odam wrote to him setting out the exchange rate between Dutch Guilders and Euros that would be used to make payments to him though the discounted options scheme after Holland switched to the Euro in 2001.

Finally there is the Barrister for Rangers (oldco) James Mure QC. He represented the club to the inquiry. HMRC had rejected attempts to take Rangers out of administration and forced the club into liquidation. Mr Mure was instructed by the administrators of Rangers to represent the club. Is it really plausible that he knew nothing about the DOS scheme?

Questions and no answers
We put questions to Campbell Ogilvie, the SFA and James Mure QC about these issues. Mr Ogilvie simply didn’t reply to our attempts to contact him. The SFA declined to comment and Mr Mure cited client confidentiality in his refusal to answer questions. The correspondence is included in Annex I.
Conclusions on the issue concerning the inquiry into rule-breaking. It seems scarcely credible that Campbell Ogilvie, President of the Scottish Football Association, could not have been aware of the differences between the two tax schemes, or of any details surrounding the DOS scheme when he gave evidence on behalf of the SPL to the judge-led inquiry. Perhaps he simply forgot, and by chance that forgetfulness saved his longstanding club and employer from being stripped of many titles. What is not credible is the SFA’s response. When presented with evidence that the inquiry into the breaking of their rules had been misled by their own former President, with the result that a club they regulated may have wrongly held won championships, it cannot be acceptable that the SFA say nothing. Changes are clearly needed in relation to the handling of conflicts of interest within the governing body, and to the processes of member club accountability for malfeasance. In relation to the specific case at hand, it is difficult to see a continuing role for those involved in the decision-making at the time, and in the subsequent failure to address the demonstrated errors of the inquiry’s findings.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:58 pm - Aug 1, 2018


easyJamboAugust 1, 2018 at 22:21
‘..We are agreeing SFA…You don’t know how DOS schemes work, yet you continue to argue the Moore was somehow different from every other RFC player from the period who sought to avoid tax….’
________
That made me laugh out loud, eJ!08
It was a brilliantly effective and thoroughly workmanlike response to someone who has no notion of rational argumentation from agreed premises, and who  refuses to accept objectively factual information offered  in a true spirit of honest argument, and just shuts his closed mind even more tightly.

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on11:18 pm - Aug 1, 2018


BARCABHOYAUGUST 1, 2018 at 22:20Yet again Lawman hijacks the blog. Defending Murray is as low as it gets , and as idiotic
________________________________________________________

Yet again, Lawman is misinterpreted.  For the avoidance of any doubt, i SOLELY blame Murray for the EBT mess which lets face it, was the door opener to Whyte amongst other things.  I thought that was pretty clear when i said all the rest of the Board were just puppets and it was all his decisions.

Quite how that can translate to defending Murray, I will never know.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:19 pm - Aug 1, 2018


MercDocAugust 1, 2018 at 22:53
‘..One man who could certainly have told them about the DOS scheme was Campbell Ogilvie. ‘
_____________
Yes.

And was there a Scottish ‘journalist’ who acted like a ‘journalist’ and got right in about yer man, with chapter and verse, and some serious questioning? 

No, there was not!

Not even that most fearless and intrepid seeker after truth, the redoubtable Chick [ whose salary we paid, and whose post-retirement frequent appearances  we are still paying for] asked questions of Ogilvie.

On the contrary, he tried to laugh off the said Ogilvie’s EBT of £90 grand or so as being about enough for a good night out.

I thought Chick was a devious, complicit bas…d then.

And that his bosses in Radio Scotland ( whom we are also paying) were  the kind of the same kind of stuff that  Lord Reith would have wiped off his shoes as excrement that he would have  wiped off the doormat at the door of Bush House before he entered.

I still think so.

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on11:19 pm - Aug 1, 2018


 After all the absolute rubbish he posts on here, why is the lawman, also well known as steerpike, still allowed to post on here? 

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:28 pm - Aug 1, 2018


Well lawman. 
    I think you have fluffed your audition to become Ogilvie’s lawyer. I don’t know any lawyer who will pass it because he is guilty as sin, and near the top of the tree when it comes to culpability.
   I get you defending Rangers(I.L.)…I really do….But you can’t be selective about how you apportion blame. The guilty are guilty….All of them. You know far to much of the goings on not to know, or have an opinion on Ogilvie’s part. 
   From that I can only conclude, it is not just Rangers(I.L.) you are attempting to defend. In fact you have drawn considerable attention to those you think should be held accountable.
   Lets try a different tack
   Do you agree with the honourable Turnbull Hutton (RIP) when he called out the SFA on the steps of Hampden,  accusing them of bullying, Lying, and rail-roading, alleging blackmail, then publicly calling them corrupt?
   Further, have you, or anyone known to you, ever uttered the words, “I am the SFA”.

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on11:29 pm - Aug 1, 2018


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9746265/Rangers-manager
Rangers manager Ally McCoist says Steven Naismith and Kyle Lafferty must live with decisions
Ally McCoist has told Steven Naismith and Kyle Lafferty – both of whom have stated that they cannot return to Ibrox because of fans’ resentment over the way they left – that the pair must live with the consequences of the decisions they made.17

listened to a wee bit of Radio Clyde listen again from last night, Roger Hannah and Dalziel both agreeing that there is no problem with returing to Rangers for second time. Hannah claims Fraser Wishart would explain the TUPE scenario, that would be worth listening to, this guy is a Union man with responsibilities in employment law.

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on11:33 pm - Aug 1, 2018


EASYJAMBOWe are agreeing SFA.
In at least three earlier posts, I told you that Moore’s assessment was “out of time”. It’s only three short words, but if you are really struggling to take it in, then I can explain the phrase to you.

I didnt miss that at all.  It still does not change the material fact that no penalties were issued in the case of Moore.  Thats where all of this started.  Me simply replying that there was no penalties and a host of people saying I was lying.  You confirmed this was the case and i actually thanked you for doing so.

You profess no knowledge of whether or not Moore’s scheme was similar to that of Flo and De Boer. You don’t know how DOS schemes work, yet you continue to argue the Moore was somehow different from every other RFC player from the period who sought to avoid tax.

We have 82 cases here.  81 of them resulted in a decision that penalties should occur.  81 of them had side letters.  1 case didnt produce a side letter and that same case didnt incur penalties.  It could be pure coincendence that 1)  It was the first ever case.  2)  It was administered differently and separate to the other 2 schemes.  Or it could be that perhaps the reason no side letter was provided was that there wasnt one.  Baring in mind, if they were to choose which one to “shred” it would have been better to have been 1 of the other ones which attracted a far higher liability than the 1st ever……administered different to every other one.

It’s normal courtesy on this board to thank others who help your understanding of a particular topic. You have shown no inclination to do so.

As above, i immediately thanked you for the information.  You confirmed EXACTLY what i said and fair play for the rest of the detail.  Prior to your post, can you please show me anything i said that wasnt true about the situation.

I alerted others about your posting style a week or two back. I suggested that you would soon revert to trolling, once you were freed from moderation. I think we have seen evidence of that tonight.

This trolling thing is a pain.  Im passionate and like to debate things.  Prior to this evening, i dont think ive mentioned Ogilvie since coming back on the board.  If i hadnt been asked about him, i wouldnt have even thought about the non entity.  Because i answer a few questions and defend myself against accusations of lying, im a troll and a steerpike and a plant for the old regime.  Come on guys.

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on11:33 pm - Aug 1, 2018


C.O.,
Well said.

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on11:36 pm - Aug 1, 2018


Corrupt officialAugust 1, 2018 at 23:28Further, have you, or anyone known to you, ever uttered the words, “I am the SFA”.

Class like earlier stated there is no escaping the information that has been banked for ever. Phone ins are now becoming a desperate earpiece for fans of a certain club to voice their desperation and be soothed by the propagandists employed to talk comforting shite.

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on11:40 pm - Aug 1, 2018


PORTBHOYAUGUST 1, 2018 at 23:19 After all the absolute rubbish he posts on here, why is the lawman, also well known as steerpike, still allowed to post on here? 

******
….and I ask myself the same question.#bandplayedwaltzingmatilda

View Comment

TheLawMan2Posted on11:46 pm - Aug 1, 2018


CORRUPT OFFICIALAUGUST 1, 2018 at 23:28   Do you agree with the honourable Turnbull Hutton (RIP) when he called out the SFA on the steps of Hampden,  accusing them of bullying, Lying, and rail-roading, alleging blackmail, then publicly calling them corrupt?

   
I believe there would have been CONSIDERABLE pressure being applied to get Rangers into the 1st division yes so i can absolutely see how he could reach that conclusion.  Im glad he and others stood firm and im firmly of the belief that the 3rd division was the correct conclusion.  For what its worth, i believe that would happen with any of the biggest clubs in any league around the world, whilst accepting its completely wrong.

Further, have you, or anyone known to you, ever uttered the words, “I am the SFA”.

I dont get that but my views on the SFA are also there to be read in my posting history on Twitter and other Ranger media.  They have always been stuck in the dark ages and like their counterparts in the SPL etc, couldnt run a menage.  So, No i havent uttered those words and i dont know anyone in the organisation at all.  I once shook hands and exchanged pleasantries with Jack McGinn and that would be the only serving person in the SFA i have ever spoken to.

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:46 pm - Aug 1, 2018


I miss the Thumbs ups .  They were good for affirmation.  Thumbs down I hated.

04 For thumbs up.  If I have won the lottery tonight.  PS Celtic didn’t lose tonight. 04

View Comment

MercDocPosted on11:50 pm - Aug 1, 2018


Lawman, maybe Craig Moore is a trusting soul and didn’t need a side letter. CO just handed over control of a company:
“The minutes note that Mr Ogilvie had taken control of Montreal Limited on behalf of the club and the three board members then resolved to give ownership of Montreal Limited to Craig Moore: the key transaction in the DOS EBT scheme. ” 
Flo and DeBoer, not so naive. For some reason they required a side letter! Why not just trust Murray, Olgilvie and Odam. Good for a night out, at the very least!

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on11:54 pm - Aug 1, 2018


Steerpkike, I have over a hundred of your very offensive posts from the old days. Being the gentleman I am,  I would hate to embarrass just now.

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on12:00 am - Aug 2, 2018


THom the tim,excellent ,
  HAHAHHAHHHHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on12:15 am - Aug 2, 2018


I believe there would have been CONSIDERABLE pressure being applied to get Rangers into the 1st division yes so i can absolutely see how he could reach that conclusion.  Im glad he and others stood firm and im firmly of the belief that the 3rd division was the correct conclusion.  For what its worth, i believe that would happen with any of the biggest clubs in any league around the world, whilst accepting its completely wrong.
   ———————————————————————————————————
    I don’t understand how you can get to that point.   SP League clubs voted “No to Newco”, and SF League clubs were adamant that the only way Sevco could join the leagues, was in the bottom division (Hence the reason Turnbull Hutton spoke out)…..Who was applying pressure, and why?….Are you saying the SFA were putting pressure on the SFA, or implying some other organisation did?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:21 am - Aug 2, 2018


PortbhoyAugust 1, 2018 at 23:54
‘..I would hate to embarrass just now.’
____________
Oh, go on, go on, go on, go on, -have a cup of tea, and embarrass the hell out of him!08

View Comment

Comments are closed.